Dismissed

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2021WRIC/4189/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the petitioner disputes electricity bill accuracy, an alternative remedy under the Electricity Supply Code exists. The court dismissed the writ petition and directed the petitioner to file a representation to the competent authority within two weeks, granting a six-week stay on coercive action. The court reserved final disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file a representation within two weeks; coercive action stayed for six weeks.

Smt. Sushila Devi Vs State of U P and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4189 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Sushila Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.S. Pandey,Rajshree Malviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶6

The instant petition has been filed seeking following reliefs :-

¶7

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari by quashing the impugned certificate (citation) dated 31.12.2020 for Rs.1,27,504/- issued by the respondent no.2 and 3 including recovery charges whichever be (Annexure No.1 with this instant writ petition).

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the concern authority of electricity department to withdraw its recovery certificate from District Magistrate, Prayagraj (Allahabad) and again sent correct bills of electricity of the petitioner.

¶9

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus by directing the concerned respondent to modify the electricity bills w.e.f. August, 2018 to January, 2021 counting at the rate of past consumption of electricity of the petitioner and adjusted previous deposited amount of the petitioner to the concerned electricity department i.e. office of the respondent."

¶10

At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent-Power Corporation raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is disputing the accuracy of electricity bills, hence, he has an alternative remedy to file a complaint with the competent

¶11

authority under the provisions of Clause 6.5 (b) of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 and this writ petition may not be entertained.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that he may be allowed an opportunity to appear before the concerned authority by way of filing a representation in this regard.

¶13

In aforesaid view of the matter, without entering into the merits of the case, we dispose of this writ petition directing the petitioner to move a representation under the provisions of Clause 6.5 (b) of Electricity Supply Code, 2005 before concerned competent authority within two weeks, which shall be considered and decided by the respondent authority strictly in accordance with law by passing an appropriate, reasoned and speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶14

For a period of six weeks from today or till the final decision on petitioner's representation, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in pursuance of impugned certificate (citation) dated 31.12.2020.

¶15

It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to file the representation as indicated above, he shall not be entitled to get the benefit of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 9.2.2021 Manish Himwan

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sushila Devi v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Shyam Manohar Dharmarth Aushdhalaya Trust Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vijay Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Farzana Parveen Vs State of U.P. and Another

The Institute of Management Education and Another Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shamshad Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaswant Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others